Micro 181: Everyone's being watched (Game Over)

[Zionite]

/confirm

Vote Wisdom

for death note reference.

[Zionite]

Only scum OMGUS and call it OMGUS.

[Zionite]

No.

BTW, how do I get the fancy white background on the vote? Is it a tag or just the format?

[Zionite]

VOTE: Wisdom
That is cool as hell. I want babies with it.

[Zionite]

I don't. This is clearly an over justification of his vote when no one else really cares about justifying theirs. The questions he asks of Fuzzy are easy pitches and get us no closer to finding scum.
UNVOTE: Wisdom
VOTE: Horus

[Zionite]

Let's be fair; we're on page 2 and you're flailing already.

[Zionite]

I'm just reading what you've given me; if you want to pretend this isn't flailing to justify your vote then go ahead. I'm not so easily fooled. I'm still waiting for you to address my original points laid out when I voted.

[Zionite]

fuzzybutternut: You had been posting during RVS without random-voting, then I voted for you for not voting and then yiu random-voted. Do you see value in RVS participation? If so, then why were you abstaining until I brought it up? If not, then why did you join in at my prompting?

How does the answer to these questions tell us whether Fuzzy is scum or not? Why are these questions only asked after Miss Destroyer accused you of being scum?

[Zionite]

But why ask after being called scum instead of when you voted?

[Zionite]

Seems fair.

UNVOTE: Horus

VOTE: Grimgroove

[Zionite]

Any vote against me in the same post as the word "totes" is ignored.

But seriously, you're going to have to do better than that.

[Zionite]

VOTE: Horus

You're overreacting.

And what does this imply? That I am scum?

VOTE: Wisdom

For overreacting.

@Zionite: I don't like your vote on me and would appreciate it if you remove it.

Tell me what you think of Horus' behavior and I will.

[Zionite]

The reason for my vote in the first place was to get content. I chose someone off the list who hadn't posted. I don't like the response so I'm leaving my vote until my read changes.

[Zionite]

I don't condone lynching someone simply because they're lurking. I'm the only one voting Grimgroove, so to act as if I'm trying to get an easy lynch is ridiculous. I haven't pushed a case for Grimgroove or tried to convince anyone, so how can you say I'm seeking a lynch? But I will use my vote for pressure whenever I choose; that's why it's there. I don't like Grimgroove's response to it so I'm leaving it there. I won't let you bully me out of it.

[Zionite]

Whether it helps the town or not remains to be seen unless you already know who the scum are. You can't know it's not helping unless you're scum.

[Zionite]

By getting more information than we have. That should be obvious since it's working.

[Zionite]

I think the response I got was an overreaction and quite telling, but I won't know more until I hear more. I think more votes on Grimgroove would be a good thing.

[Zionite]

I see a great difference between voting someone and actively campaigning to lynch someone. Each has their purposes, but I'm content with just a vote on Grimgroove. If I see something worth assembling the mob for, I'll switch to campaign mode, otherwise I see fit to simply vote and watch. You can apply pressure without the campaign in my experience.

[Zionite]

Hey, maybe it works, I wouldn't know - I don't try it on principle. Voting for someone and expecting them to feel "pressured" while also announcing to the thread that you aren't interested in actually lynching them seems counterintuitive to me - since the express purpose of a vote is to exact a lynch and the threat of a lynch is the only potential source of "pressure" I can see. Take that threat away and the pressure is gone.

"Hey, I'm going to park my vote on you, but don't worry: I'm not pushing a case against you and I don't want to lynch you. But... it would be really helpful if you would still panic so I can fish for reactions, please."

I've had this argument before in a recent game. My findings were that it's fine to vote for pressure and call it what it is. It may not be as effective as campaigning, but it doesn't take that much effort either and stays away from being disingenuous. I play as honestly as I can because it's easier than "pretending" to try to lynch someone when you really just want a read.

Zionite why are you voting someone who IIRC is on V/LA for Memorial Day Weekend?

To get a read. It worked.
UNVOTE:

^because he's scum.

Not a fan of the mudslinging.

So, I'm back. I see I'm being accused of lurking? I obviously forgot to state it here, which is my fault, but during the weekends it will always be very difficult for me to come online. I hope this is fine. I always try to make up for that in the weekdays.

Well, you were lurking. But I'm glad to see it's only on weekends.

As far as Zionite's question is concerned about Horus, two things:
Firstly: I don't see the connection between my apparent lack on opinion on Horus and the vote for me. Why are opinions on Horus so important to you, and why mine specifically?

I felt that it was the biggest event of the game so far and it was odd for you to ignore it while fixating on my vote.

Secondly: I'll humour you and answer your question though. In my eyes, Horus makes a lot of sense, his post 33 was already quite robust, but for some reason it's called "flailing" and an "overreaction", something I can't agree with. I see a rational response to some half-baked allegations. I don't mind the allegations per sé, in the beginning they will always be half-baked and you have to start somewhere, but I don't agree with how Horus was treated on page 2. His "SLOOOOWWWW"-post shows the kind of commitment I like in a player. It's a null read affiliation-wise, true, but someone who obiously want things to move forward in a reasonable pace is 1. not lynch-material on D1 because of the activity this will provide. 2. not lynch-material on D1 because active people should be easier to get a firm read on.

So you don't think explaining himself after he caught flak for his vote is scummy, just normal behavior?

@Zionite: And how was my reaction to your vote bad? It was a vote before I had even posted anything, so obviously without a real reason. How could anyone react badly to such a vote? I didn't take it seriously, so I just asked you to remove it in a simplistic manner, not ever seriously thinking that this alone would convince you. How do you see this as an overreaction?

It wasn't really an overreaction, but I expected that if you really didn't take it seriously then you'd simply ignore it. I didn't like that comments on the game state were replaced by a self-conscious fixation. Again, this was the only post of yours that I had to go off of for a read.

I think my vote on Wisdom is also still in a good place. I think it's a very defensive interpretation of 35, and I don't see any reason for this kind of defensiveness, especially from someone who obviously is very sensitive to supposed overreactions himself.

Seems fair. I'm not confident enough to follow you though.

You guys do claims at L-2 right?

[Zionite]

So, I'm back. I see I'm being accused of lurking? I obviously forgot to state it here, which is my fault, but during the weekends it will always be very difficult for me to come online. I hope this is fine. I always try to make up for that in the weekdays.

Well, you were lurking. But I'm glad to see it's only on weekends.

As far as Zionite's question is concerned about Horus, two things:
Firstly: I don't see the connection between my apparent lack on opinion on Horus and the vote for me. Why are opinions on Horus so important to you, and why mine specifically?

I felt that it was the biggest event of the game so far and it was odd for you to ignore it while fixating on my vote.

I don't agree this actually constitued as a big event, but given the other activity in this topic so far, I guess you could call it the biggest. However, I was only popping my head in, too time-constrained to contribute anything of real value or to read the Horus-Wisdom-Zionite-discussion in depth. If I had to react to anything, I'd only think it logical to respond to any vote on me, even if the vote was only half-serious and my reaction to it as well. As it was my first and only post, I think it's quite a stretch to already start talking about "fixations". From my point of view ignoring a vote, hoping it simply passes, is scummier than anything else. Is your post 48 a fixation on someone voting for you? Saying you'll ignore something is just as much of a reaction as my nonsensical request to remove your vote.

Secondly: I'll humour you and answer your question though. In my eyes, Horus makes a lot of sense, his post 33 was already quite robust, but for some reason it's called "flailing" and an "overreaction", something I can't agree with. I see a rational response to some half-baked allegations. I don't mind the allegations per sé, in the beginning they will always be half-baked and you have to start somewhere, but I don't agree with how Horus was treated on page 2. His "SLOOOOWWWW"-post shows the kind of commitment I like in a player. It's a null read affiliation-wise, true, but someone who obiously want things to move forward in a reasonable pace is 1. not lynch-material on D1 because of the activity this will provide. 2. not lynch-material on D1 because active people should be easier to get a firm read on.

So you don't think explaining himself after he caught flak for his vote is scummy, just normal behavior?

Flak? Wisdom's assertion that he was votehopping is flak? Anyway, I'd say yes, it's pretty normal. In fact, I find people willing to explain themselves more worthy of my trust in general. It gives you something to judge them on. Only when the explanation is bad, it's scummy. If the explanation is good, I see no reason at all why it would be scummy. We all are driven by certain reasons, and I think it's very townish to make yours clear.

@Zionite: And how was my reaction to your vote bad? It was a vote before I had even posted anything, so obviously without a real reason. How could anyone react badly to such a vote? I didn't take it seriously, so I just asked you to remove it in a simplistic manner, not ever seriously thinking that this alone would convince you. How do you see this as an overreaction?

It wasn't really an overreaction, but I expected that if you really didn't take it seriously then you'd simply ignore it. I didn't like that comments on the game state were replaced by a self-conscious fixation. Again, this was the only post of yours that I had to go off of for a read.

You called it an overreaction in post 63. Why call it that if it wasn't really?

I think my vote on Wisdom is also still in a good place. I think it's a very defensive interpretation of 35, and I don't see any reason for this kind of defensiveness, especially from someone who obviously is very sensitive to supposed overreactions himself.

Seems fair. I'm not confident enough to follow you though.

Do you have any other leads that you see? What do you think of Fuzzy's behaviour?

You guys do claims at L-2 right?

No. I do the same as Wisdom.

Not that I think this discussion will bring us very far, I realize I've reiterated the majority of what I said before. But I would very much like more activity. When I see the Bingo-game already has 13 pages and started the same day, my heart cries a little bit for this game.

@Wisdom: What do you think of my vote on you? What do you think of Zionite's cases so far?

Not much to go on right now, but both Zionite and Horus are ok in my book, basically because of their high and meaningful activity.
Wisdom and fuzzybutternut I don't like very much.
All the others have left no impression on me whatsoever.[/quote]

I've been skimming.

UNVOTE: fuzzybutternut
VOTE: Zionite

That's L-1. No one fucking hammer yet.

More detailed reads later tonight.

[Zionite]

Whoops, meant to hit preview.

As far as Zionite's question is concerned about Horus, two things:
Firstly: I don't see the connection between my apparent lack on opinion on Horus and the vote for me. Why are opinions on Horus so important to you, and why mine specifically?

I felt that it was the biggest event of the game so far and it was odd for you to ignore it while fixating on my vote.

I don't agree this actually constitued as a big event, but given the other activity in this topic so far, I guess you could call it the biggest. However, I was only popping my head in, too time-constrained to contribute anything of real value or to read the Horus-Wisdom-Zionite-discussion in depth. If I had to react to anything, I'd only think it logical to respond to any vote on me, even if the vote was only half-serious and my reaction to it as well. As it was my first and only post, I think it's quite a stretch to already start talking about "fixations". From my point of view ignoring a vote, hoping it simply passes, is scummier than anything else. Is your post 48 a fixation on someone voting for you? Saying you'll ignore something is just as much of a reaction as my nonsensical request to remove your vote.

From my experience, being too self-conscious of the votes on yourself instead of the players around you is considered scummy. The meta may be different here, but that's how I've seen it most commonly.

@Zionite: And how was my reaction to your vote bad? It was a vote before I had even posted anything, so obviously without a real reason. How could anyone react badly to such a vote? I didn't take it seriously, so I just asked you to remove it in a simplistic manner, not ever seriously thinking that this alone would convince you. How do you see this as an overreaction?

It wasn't really an overreaction, but I expected that if you really didn't take it seriously then you'd simply ignore it. I didn't like that comments on the game state were replaced by a self-conscious fixation. Again, this was the only post of yours that I had to go off of for a read.

You called it an overreaction in post 63. Why call it that if it wasn't really?

I considered it a tell of overreaction, but no one else responded to it the same way. So either I'm wrong (which makes the point invalid), or the tell doesn't have the same reliability on MS (which makes it no good anyway).

I think my vote on Wisdom is also still in a good place. I think it's a very defensive interpretation of 35, and I don't see any reason for this kind of defensiveness, especially from someone who obviously is very sensitive to supposed overreactions himself.

Seems fair. I'm not confident enough to follow you though.

Do you have any other leads that you see? What do you think of Fuzzy's behaviour?

I'll wait until the wagon on me blows over to go after Fuzzy. Doing it now will only draw cries of deflection and OMGUS regardless of what I say. I'd rather hear what he has to say first anyway. Other than that, probably Malakittens and Miss Destroyer need a look.

I've been skimming.

UNVOTE: fuzzybutternut
VOTE: Zionite

That's L-1. No one fucking hammer yet.

More detailed reads later tonight.

I don't like this. What's the rush on the vote if you're going to explain it later?

[Zionite]

What's wrong with the vote?

Whoops, meant to hit preview.

I've been skimming.

UNVOTE: fuzzybutternut
VOTE: Zionite

That's L-1. No one fucking hammer yet.

More detailed reads later tonight.

I don't like this.

What's the rush on the vote if you're going to explain it later?

I don't know why I have to do this.

[Zionite]

I'm used to L-2 being claim range. L-1 feels like rushing things, especially when you're not even going to explain the vote at all. Pressure I can understand, but you led us to believe there was something more to it and still have not produced the details promised.

[Zionite]

Anyone could hammer me right now and just say "oops". I've seen it happen when town forget to check the VC and accidentally lynch someone at L-1. This policy makes sense assuming only scum would hammer at this juncture, but having seen town do it too makes me nervous when there hasn't been much presented against me.

[Zionite]

Well, I initially put my vote on him to pressure him and, since then, he's shown me no reason to take it off, so, yeah.

You haven't given us reason for the original vote besides pressure despite promising more details.

You haven't shown why my response to your pressure vote is reason to leave it there.

[Zionite]

Here's the way I see it: you throw a vote on me promising details later.

No details come.

I can either 1) Call you out on it, you say I'm "freaking out" or 2) totally ignore it, you call me scum for ignoring your vote. You haven't shown what a town response would be, so how would I know whether your point is valid or not?

[Zionite]

It's putting the cart before the horse; you say you have a reason to vote me, and then you say my reaction is the reason to vote me.

[Zionite]

Grim explained it pretty well; there's no way I can defend against an interpretive argument. I can deny it, but I can't prove it wrong because it's subjective. It's awfully convenient for DBK. I still don't like how the details promised with his vote didn't actually exist; he was going to leave it there regardless of my response.

The fact that Malakittens hasn't quoted a single post of mine pointing out what exactly "freaking out" is, or shown me similar behavior from a scum player (or even my own meta, as it has been provided and available), makes it difficult to refute. There's no facts to disprove; just my word against his (hers?). I'd much rather work with verifiable scum tells.

DBK: You say you can't read Rach's meta despite the post 99 being scummy to you. Why is it not possible that my posts seem scummy but you can't read me due to meta? Or are you just fence sitting to pretend to have an opinion on Rach?

Malakittens: If you're reading DBK as scum, why are you on the same wagon as him? Do you think he's bussing?

[Zionite]

Might as well get rid of the comma too since we're rewriting what you've said entirely.

[Zionite]

So DBK's argument for me being scum, according to his catch up post, is that he disagrees with me over Horus' activity. I have a different opinion from his, so I'm scum. I also think my vote has the capability to be used for pressure which somehow makes me scum. The fact that I don't like defending and casing at the same time makes me scum (would like to see a reason why this is besides "scum scum").

Where is Miss Destroyer?

[Zionite]

If you guys would’ve wanted a summary of things, I

might’ve

given them to you, depending on if I

for sure

had the time. But again, people jump to conclusions, assume that if I would’ve had a case on people, I would’ve said it, or some of it, at the time of my vote, but the truth is, I’m going to say this again, that

I voted L-1 early

because I was confident Zionite was scum

, the pressure could've helped in others' questioning of Zionite, and that it was exactly what I needed to do to make my presence more known.

Wait, was? It's changed since then?

Still working on those....

You I tend to find hard to read, but you have also been Town in those games so ehh you can go in the leaning Town pile

DBK is also prob town.

that is all I have atm

more later

Why is DBK prob town?

[Zionite]

I still am confident you're scum, Zionite. At the time of my L-1 vote, I was confident you were scum, and I still am.

Also, I'm fairly certain that I have the most organized case outline of Zionite. It's not inside a wall, it's actually in the post where I spoilered something. The only other points I've seen about Zionite are overreacting, and that's actually something I don't agree with as far as Zionite-scum goes.

So if you'd rather not read walls about that, you can look at what I have.

Sure, I'll address it since you worked on it. I still think it should have come sooner though, like the night you promised it.

Horus is town because of his first question to get us out of RVS (town-motivated), and because I agree with his reasons for every action he's done so far (town-motivated because I'm town).

I agree with you that getting the town out of RVS is pro town. However, the disconnect I have is whether or not

that is what Horus intended to do

. I don't think he was intentionally trying to get the town out of RVS. However,

I

was intentionally using the situation to end RVS, having experienced success in doing so in other games. Go back and read page 2 again. I'll ask you, does it look like I want RVS to continue, or does it look like I'm using the situation to begin the real game? If ending RVS is pro-town, then you should be reading my exchange with Horus as a pro-town exchange, not as a scum attack.

My case against Zionite:
- Accuses Horus of being scum because he believes Horus is over-justifying a vote, even though Horus's vote and question about Fuzzy got us out of RVS, and the question didn't look worthless.

It looked worthless to me. Whether it got us out of RVS or not doesn't change it's meaning, which was over-justification. Yes it's a town-tell in this regard, which is why I dropped my vote quickly. But the overjustification was nonetheless present even if it wasn't a scum-tell in this instance.

- 59 looks like he's trying to say Fuzzy is scum if Fuzzy were to keep defending his point, but doesn't follow through with that accusation. A fairly weak point, maybe I can ask Zionite exactly what he thinks of Fuzzy.

I've been fairly obvious as to what I think about fuzzy. If you don't know what it is then you haven't paid attention. But I have to ask, how does accusing Fuzzy make me scum? Do you know Fuzzy to be town?

- He just looks like he's taking most of the credit for getting a read on Grimgroove, because of his sole vote, when from what I can tell in Grimgroove's early posts, the vote on Grimgroove didn't really have any impact.

I don't care about getting credit; I care about getting reads. My vote got a response, and a read. That's what I wanted. Successful operation.

[Zionite]

Fuzzy is high on my suspect list, but I'm not pursuing it at the moment because I can't convince a town to think my way if they believe I'm scum. It's a waste of time better spent shooting down bad arguments against me. I've said a couple of times that this was my goal; I think you're just being intentionally dense.

That's your opinion. By my count, my vote did exactly what it was set out to do and even led Grimgroove to the conclusion that I'm town. I could argue that I saved us from mislynching, but it would be WIFOM. So I don't really care about the rhetoric you're pushing in lieu of facts (didn't mean shit, strutting around, complaining, loaded words in general). The events speak for themselves.

It would be deflection. I'd rather handle this now and get to the cases when we're out of the woods.

[Zionite]

I'll case Fuzzy when you're done with whatever this is.

Does that make me scum? Your original argument somehow concludes that it does but I don't follow.

Some things can't be defended, and you're really good at pushing those rhetorical arguments. But when you pull it apart and look at the pieces it's easier to tell where it is flawed. This is a good interaction though; I think it's safe to say we're not scum buddies.

[Zionite]

RachMarie:

Rach and Grim, thoughts on fuzzy?

I'm coming around to the Zionite wagon, I've been trying to work out my thoughts on him and I'm actually finding it a very arduous task to move him out of the null column one way or the other; we basically get one snippet of meaningful activity between him and I immediately outside of RVS, and after that his focus immediately narrows exclusively to trying to negotiate townreads on him.

His early content becomes crucial in reading him because almost everything afterward is focused on defense and claiming towncred, which does less to inform us of his alignment and more his personality/playstyle: It is evident that Zionite is accustomed to being able to snatch early towncred and begin to command the thread in the game's earliest stages. The fact that this strategy has so spectacularly backfired in this instance confounds him and he is now focused almost entirely on figuring out what went wrong and reclaiming the perceived towncred he feels we're denying him.

This singular focus on defense is something I would ordinarily find scummy, but I've been burned enough times by people who did this and flipped Town to be wary - his ego (as I perceive it) suggests he is a seasoned player, however, who wouldn't fall victim to such a vice as Town (his #89 provides a helpful window, informing us he does, in fact, consider one's fixation on their own wagon a scumtell), so I am left to wonder...

why did he stop scumhunting once he became a suspect?

I like this wagon, but I'm wary because I've heard a lot of quiet agreement that fuzzybutternut is suspicious, but there's been no movement on that front - which is rather odd.

Well, sometimes you can't defend every point, Zionite.

You see, some points in cases will be at the discretion of the player. You could do all the convincing in the world, but sometimes it won't work. If every point in a scum case could be defended, then every player could defend themselves out of a wagon.

I view you as scum, and maybe the points I have against you are not under your control, or not-defendable. The thing is, if you're under a wagon and a lynch could be imminent, do what it takes to help town (or pretend to help town, if you're scum) the most, whether it be defend yourself, attempt to scumhunt, or if you're lynched, leave reads that you have so it can give us a better understanding.

RachMarie:

Rach and Grim, thoughts on fuzzy?

I'm coming around to the Zionite wagon, I've been trying to work out my thoughts on him and I'm actually finding it a very arduous task to move him out of the null column one way or the other; we basically get one snippet of meaningful activity between him and I immediately outside of RVS, and after that his focus immediately narrows exclusively to trying to negotiate townreads on him.

His early content becomes crucial in reading him because almost everything afterward is focused on defense and claiming towncred, which does less to inform us of his alignment and more his personality/playstyle: It is evident that Zionite is accustomed to being able to snatch early towncred and begin to command the thread in the game's earliest stages. The fact that this strategy has so spectacularly backfired in this instance confounds him and he is now focused almost entirely on figuring out what went wrong and reclaiming the perceived towncred he feels we're denying him.

This singular focus on defense is something I would ordinarily find scummy, but I've been burned enough times by people who did this and flipped Town to be wary - his ego (as I perceive it) suggests he is a seasoned player, however, who wouldn't fall victim to such a vice as Town (his #89 provides a helpful window, informing us he does, in fact, consider one's fixation on their own wagon a scumtell), so I am left to wonder...

why did he stop scumhunting once he became a suspect?

I like this wagon, but I'm wary because I've heard a lot of quiet agreement that fuzzybutternut is suspicious, but there's been no movement on that front - which is rather odd.

You'll come to realize sooner or later that the way I play this game is completely different from anyone else. That being said, you'll get used to this....
or you won't. Doesn't matter to me.

I'll case Fuzzy when you're done with whatever this is.

Does that make me scum? Your original argument somehow concludes that it does but I don't follow.

Some things can't be defended, and you're really good at pushing those rhetorical arguments. But when you pull it apart and look at the pieces it's easier to tell where it is flawed. This is a good interaction though; I think it's safe to say we're not scum buddies.

If I was one of your top suspects, you'd already have been on my case and you wouldn't have left my case unless you had a reason.

[Zionite]

They should really disable posts if there's nothing new. /MTGS Problems

RachMarie:

Rach and Grim, thoughts on fuzzy?

I'm coming around to the Zionite wagon, I've been trying to work out my thoughts on him and I'm actually finding it a very arduous task to move him out of the null column one way or the other; we basically get one snippet of meaningful activity between him and I immediately outside of RVS, and after that his focus immediately narrows exclusively to trying to negotiate townreads on him.

His early content becomes crucial in reading him because almost everything afterward is focused on defense and claiming towncred, which does less to inform us of his alignment and more his personality/playstyle: It is evident that Zionite is accustomed to being able to snatch early towncred and begin to command the thread in the game's earliest stages. The fact that this strategy has so spectacularly backfired in this instance confounds him and he is now focused almost entirely on figuring out what went wrong and reclaiming the perceived towncred he feels we're denying him.

This singular focus on defense is something I would ordinarily find scummy, but I've been burned enough times by people who did this and flipped Town to be wary - his ego (as I perceive it) suggests he is a seasoned player, however, who wouldn't fall victim to such a vice as Town (his #89 provides a helpful window, informing us he does, in fact, consider one's fixation on their own wagon a scumtell), so I am left to wonder...

why did he stop scumhunting once he became a suspect?

I like this wagon, but I'm wary because I've heard a lot of quiet agreement that fuzzybutternut is suspicious, but there's been no movement on that front - which is rather odd.

I only command the early game AFTER the wagon on me has dissipated. Yes, this has happened before, which is why it doesn't bother me to wait it out. I'm sure I won't be lynched today. If it was going to happen it would have already. Nothing new has been presented.
But let me ask you this: if you're right that this is my preferred playstyle as town (earn towncred, command game), then how does that change things if you "like" my wagon? It seems to me that: if you know that this is how I play, then it seems unlikely that as scum I wouldn't be deflecting to another target right now. Refusing to do that shows I'm not scared to face these arguments head on because I know they're flawed and don't mind showing how.

Well, sometimes you can't defend every point, Zionite.

You see, some points in cases will be at the discretion of the player. You could do all the convincing in the world, but sometimes it won't work. If every point in a scum case could be defended, then every player could defend themselves out of a wagon.

I view you as scum, and maybe the points I have against you are not under your control, or not-defendable. The thing is, if you're under a wagon and a lynch could be imminent, do what it takes to help town (or pretend to help town, if you're scum) the most, whether it be defend yourself, attempt to scumhunt, or if you're lynched, leave reads that you have so it can give us a better understanding.

I can defend most points. The ones I can't is due to fallacy, like the rhetoric or subjective ones you are fond of. You can call something an overreaction that I interpret as normal and vice versa. Or I can say you're as scummy as the bottom of my shoe. But it's less likely to hit scum than something like vote count analysis. You can rely on rhetoric to convince the town, and you may even get lucky sometimes, but it's not how I like to do things because you can get tunnel-vision easily like you have here. It's fairly easy to see from your catch-up post that you're tunneling on me. It's far better to try to use good logic and be wrong sometimes than it is to mislynch without realizing what you're doing. I've lost many games doing that and it fosters a mistrust in your meta overall.

You'll come to realize sooner or later that the way I play this game is completely different from anyone else. That being said, you'll get used to this....
or you won't. Doesn't matter to me.

You're just so .

I'll case Fuzzy when you're done with whatever this is.

Does that make me scum? Your original argument somehow concludes that it does but I don't follow.

Some things can't be defended, and you're really good at pushing those rhetorical arguments. But when you pull it apart and look at the pieces it's easier to tell where it is flawed. This is a good interaction though; I think it's safe to say we're not scum buddies.

If I was one of your top suspects, you'd already have been on my case and you wouldn't have left my case unless you had a reason.

A man once told me, "You'll come to realize sooner or later that the way I play this game is completely different from anyone else. That being said, you'll get used to this....
or you won't. Doesn't matter to me."

Is that a valid response?

[Zionite]

Not tunnel vision.

But keep trying. Maybe the seventh time you tell me I'll believe it's tunnel vision?

This is a response to your rebuttal of my case on you, Zionite:
- Let me ask something simple for the first part: did you find Horus's over-justification scummy, yes or no?
- I didn't see how you obviously feel about Fuzzy at the time.
- I understand that you got a read and a reaction from Grimgroove like you wanted, but your vote literally didn't do anything to influence Grim's posting. I believe you're giving yourself too much credit for the little things you have done, and that everything else you have done hasn't been pro-town. Why do you believe defending yourself is more pro-town than scumhunting and pursuing others?

If you truly believe that you won't be lynched today, Zionite, then why are you so worried about your wagon still?

- At first, yes. When I unvoted, no.
- I know the type of player he is. If I had been more obvious about it, then I'd be fighting a two-front war of defending myself and responding to his defense of a half-baked case (which has started now, thanks for that). Ask the Germans how it worked out for them. It's not wrong, just bad.
- I'm typically not moved by cases presented by someone at L-2 (or 1). At that point it's more of a cry for the attention to shift to their target instead of themselves. I've found that players who adamantly attack someone else while sitting at L-2 (or 1) instead of addressing the case on themselves flip scum.

I'm not worried about it. I'm patient. I'm just having to repeat myself a lot.

@Horus: So, what were you saying then? How is my playstyle even relevant?

I've shown an interest in scumhunting, but not scumhunting and defending at the same time. I'm putting out a lot of content already and doubling that seems excessive when we have others barely posting at all.

[Zionite]

Zionite: I think I said at the time that the information I was able to glean about your playstyle wasn't alignment-indicative, just helpful in understanding the perspective your posts are coming from.

Not liking the way you keep trying to couch townreads on you into other players' posts where they don't belong.

Ok.

I'm not trying to couch townreads; I'm looking for contradictions in mindset.

[Zionite]

In post #154 you tried to infer from DBK's wording that his scumread on you had changed, despite his actual intent with the usage of past tense being quite clear. Then you blatantly assigned a townread to my analysis of you in your #175, when there was pretty much no rational way you could have read my post that way.

It wasn't clear to me, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it.

I think there was a disconnect where I recognized that as my town playstyle and you recognizing it as my playstyle in general. I thought it was an uncanny summary and wasn't able to believe that you'd come that far nailing me only to be undecided on my alignment.

[Zionite]

Are you implying that your Scum playstyle is wildly different from your Town playstyle? I would like to hear more about this.

Edit: @Zionite

It can be. Self-meta is rather worthless but if you're interested then go for it. Town game here. Scum game here.

[Zionite]

No reason to give your town-reads(which is what I mostly have) to scum.
You know who I scumread.

It makes it easier for town to give town reads. For example, a player giving town reads makes it much harder for themselves to switch later when it's convenient, something scum like to do.

[Zionite]

Zionite you're down to 2 votes now.
Wanna start scumhunting?

Definitely, thanks. I'll have a bigger post later tonight.

Rach seems aloof to me; not really engaging with the material in the game, favoring minutiae, etc. I can't call that a scum attribute because I know plenty of town who do the same thing, but only to a certain point. I'd like to see the answers to DBK's questions.

[Zionite]

So I ISO'd fuzzy in order to get a clearer picture of his play so far. My main point against him is a contradiction of interest in pursuing me over Grimgroove despite committing the same "scummy" act. There's also another lesser contradiction where his pressure vote has value but my pressure vote is somehow useless, but both have the same strength.

Premise number 1:

Zionite did not ignore a vote on himself without reason. 48

Premise number 2:

Grimgroove did not ignore a vote on himself without reason. 49

Premise number 3:

The Town response to a vote on yourself without reason is to ignore it. 149

Premise number 4:

Fuzzybutternut votes Zionite. Does not mention any read on Grimgroove. 54

Conclusion:

Fuzzy is showing preference to voting Zionite over Grimgroove despite both being valid targets.

He has yet to give a read on Grimgroove at all. I can't say why he shows preference, but my instinct believes it is because I had more votes on me at the time.
VOTE: Fuzzybutternut

I've cut some irrelevant stuff to make it easier to read, so please give it a look.

Spoiler: fuzzywuzzy

VOTE: Zionite

Contribution to town shouldn't have to be forced.

Follows Malakitten's vote for the same reason. I'm not sure how asking for a read from someone is scummy, especially in this instance. I thought it was weird that Grimgroove had ignored Horus' actions entirely in 49. I hadn't gotten the read of Grimgroove that I wanted from that single post, so I kept it on while asking for more. This is just really a bad vote to begin with; why punish a player for pressuring someone?

Voting a lurker looks like you're wanting to get an easy PL lynch going.
Which is what scum does.
Yeah. I like my vote.

Not sure what PL means. Phantom Lancer?
I picked this post because it's a false premise. Yes, scum do like easy lynches. And me pushing an easy lynch is a good sign I'm scum. The problem is that I was never voting with the intention of a lynch. I was voting with the intention of pressure. Fuzzy knows this, or should know this, given I was the only vote on Grimgroove and never tried persuading others to get an "easy lynch". This post is simply an incorrect assumption, a justification for his vote to remain on me while the wagon becomes more popular.

Umm...yes, I can, actually. Your vote as it is right now is useless, as we have no information on the slot. Tell me how that helps town?

My vote on Grimgroove is useless, but his vote on me is not? They serve the same purpose: pressure. He even says so in 102.

fuzzybutternut: You had been posting during RVS without random-voting, then I voted for you for not voting and then yiu random-voted. Do you see value in RVS participation? If so, then why were you abstaining until I brought it up? If not, then why did you join in at my prompting?

I had one post before my RVS. Therefore, this question is invalid.

This post dodges his question. He's asking why Fuzzy only participated after Horus said something about it. An answer would be "oh I was busy" or whatever. But Fuzzy says he only had one post, which doesn't answer the question at all. I don't understand how the question is invalid because of how many posts Fuzzy has.

lol Horus, stop being so damn town. It hurts.

Jumps on Horus is Town wagon; no reason why. The previous Horus posts don't have anything telling; just a meta research post and talking about mafia in general. There's no positions taken to agree with.

Well, I initially put my vote on him to pressure him and, since then, he's shown me no reason to take it off, so, yeah.

You haven't given us reason for the original vote besides pressure despite promising more details.

You haven't shown why my response to your pressure vote is reason to leave it there.

Because you all but freaked out over it. Town doesn't do that.

Lack of evidence. What is a freak out? How does that make me scum? What games are being shown that support the claim: Scum freak out over votes? It's just as likely for town to react to votes on themselves, so what is the difference between a normal reaction and a freak out, and why is that a scum tell? This is just too interpretive to hold any weight without some tangible evidence to work with, like a previous game with a scum meltdown (or even a Zionite scum meltdown) and why this situation is similar.

Uh, the town response would be to ignore it, Zi.

Why do votes matter to you so much if you're town?

DBK- I said that

a town response would be to ignore those who vote you without reason.

I can quote if you'd like.

Premise number 1:

The Town response to a vote on yourself without reason is to ignore it.

I'll case Fuzzy when you're done with whatever this is.

Does that make me scum? Your original argument somehow concludes that it does but I don't follow.

Some things can't be defended, and you're really good at pushing those rhetorical arguments. But when you pull it apart and look at the pieces it's easier to tell where it is flawed. This is a good interaction though; I think it's safe to say we're not scum buddies.

If I was one of your top suspects, you'd already have been on my case and you wouldn't have left my case unless you had a reason.

WIFOM. Who says I have to do this as town? Who's to say scum can't do this too? It doesn't mean anything yet is used to justify the vote.

After reviewing Rach's posts as well, I'd be comfortable switching my vote to her if needed.

[Zionite]

At Zionite

Not sure why everyone thinks I am scum in just about every game I am in...

PL is Policy Lynch

Well I can tell you what I found suspicious.
I didn't like how your early game is just coaching me. It was nice, but also avoided participating in the game. It's not content in the sense that I can tell where your positions are and get a read of you.
99 is a bad reason to write someone off as town and lacks confidence ("ehhh", "for now"). Wisdom is right that this is scummy following other players stating their Town Horus reads.
139 has the same lack of confidence going on ("kinda fishy"). It seems for the most part you think he's town, but you leave doubt. Not a great point, but whatever.
145 backs down in the face of pressure. Also not pleased with the submission of irrelevant facts to sway Wisdom's opinion; it doesn't matter how many times he's mislynched you when we're playing a new game. Unless you can show similarities from his play in that game and the play here, it's an irrelevant point.
147 lack of confidence ("ehh"), no real reasons given.
179 irrelevant and avoids content.
221 Again playing on this "I'll flip town" thing; there's nothing saying that you are town this game. Meta can be useful here if you're resourceful, but as it is, this just reflects badly on you. It's as if you can't respond to his arguments so you just proclaim you're town as if that explains everything. You're also fence sitting on several players without giving specific reasons why. You're quick to hand out town reads, but you never follow through on the process of elimination. "These people are town so that means...someone else figure this out".

So yeah, mainly lacking confidence in your reads, not giving specific examples, not following through on your POE, and somehow believing your frequent mislynches are the reason you're town.

[Zionite]

Because it's solely based off your last post.

I agree that the way he went about it (tone, vocabulary) sounds more town than not, but you can't write him off as town for doing something that scum is capable of as well. So was it simply the action of admitting a mistake or the way he did it that gives you the town impression?

Why have you not responded to my case on you, or any of my posts, if I'm still your scum read? I'd think you'd like to show others why I'm scum based on this.

[Zionite]

So...can we all vote him please?

[Zionite]

Can you at least give me an ETA of when you'll even acknowledge a case on you exists Fuzzy?

[Zionite]

If the town response to a vote on you without reason is to ignore it, doesn't that mean the town response to a vote on you with copious amounts of reason is to acknowledge it?

[Zionite]

Oh, and if Malakittens is my scumbuddy in your read, how do you explain the vote on me back on 53, and the extended amount of time that vote remained there? I find it hard to argue the second vote on someone is a bus vote.

[Zionite]

Is this thing even on?

[Zionite]

DID YOU NOTICE ANY OF MY QUESTIONS THOUGH!?

[Zionite]

@Rach: you're too quick to find (bad) evidence that you're town instead of voting obvious scum Fuzzy.

[Zionite]

When a player refuses to even acknowledge a case against themselves it's pretty much guaranteed unless he's just bad.

[Zionite]

Again, this is the same guy that says I'm on his scum list. Why wouldn't he use this as an opportunity to solidify that read and persuade others? It only makes sense if he's scum or bad at mafia, so I think he's scum.

I don't care what his meta is; if he wants to present it as a defense I'll listen but it's not my job to go look for it.

[Zionite]

It only makes sense if he's scum or bad at mafia, so I think he's scum.

And you ruled out the other option because...?
If I had this dilemma I'd meta him to see if he's actually bad at mafia so I could support this argument.

Again, not my job. The posting in this game supports a scum mindset, especially the ignoring of a case. If it's a bad case it should be easy for him to show why. Silence is admitting it's true. I find that when a player ignores a case against them it's indicative of being guilty. I just can't fathom why a town player would totally ignore a case on them unless they're bad.

And it's not just ignoring the case, it's ignoring everything I say. It's bullshit that he calls me scum and does no follow through whatsoever and I'm calling him out.

[Zionite]

Why are you defending him? Do you have some applicable meta to submit?

[Zionite]

You're not answering.

Neither is fuzzy. He's acknowledging my presence but not anything that's applicable to him.

[Zionite]

So because fuzzy (who in your mind is scum) is ignoring you, you thought that it's okay to ignore me too?

I'm clearly not treating you the same that fuzzy is treating me.

[Zionite]

So answer me. You're saying fuzzy is either scum or bad. Why did you rule out the latter since you didn't do any research?

I rule it out until there's reason to believe otherwise. I've said twice now that it's not my job to do meta research, especially when it's not the game i'm in currently. My current game takes precedence over meta every time. Are you saying fuzzy is a bad player?

Why is this the point you're fighting? I have a whole post dedicated to showing the contradictions fuzzy has presented in his play. It seems like you're cherry picking points you can argue against.

[Zionite]

umm Fuzzy mine is way out of date too, but got anything else to say? like something relevant to the game at hand?

What do you think of Zio's case on you?

What do you think of how Wis has been defending you?

That is relevant, what with all the meta talk going on.

Zio's case on me is shit. I have no reason to sit here and argue against it, because it's a scum-drawn wagon. Nothing I say is going to make scum change their minds that they want to lynch me. Look elsewhere if you're not scum.

fuzzy, remind me what your case on Zionite is.

Iso me.

I see no case there.
Wanna vote Rach instead?

[Zionite]

I wonder how many times I'm going to do that.

umm Fuzzy mine is way out of date too, but got anything else to say? like something relevant to the game at hand?

What do you think of Zio's case on you?

What do you think of how Wis has been defending you?

That is relevant, what with all the meta talk going on.

Zio's case on me is shit. I have no reason to sit here and argue against it, because it's a scum-drawn wagon. Nothing I say is going to make scum change their minds that they want to lynch me. Look elsewhere if you're not scum.

Show me how it's shit; it should be easy for you if that's true. If you're town ignoring a case against you, then you're doing the town a disservice by letting us focus on you instead of scum. It's terrible play or scummy as hell, take your pick.
You don't know my alignment unless you're scum. So if you're town, there's the possibility you're WRONG *gasp* and I could change my mind.
Why aren't you using this as an opportunity to show how I'm scum? My case should be laden with misreps and assumptions if I'm scum.

fuzzy, remind me what your case on Zionite is.

Iso me.

I see no case there.
Wanna vote Rach instead?

That's the problem. There is no case from Fuzzy. And there continues to be no case even in the face of a wealth of content.

[Zionite]

I'm not asking for support on it.

Say I made a good case about him. If he's scum, yeah, that's great and all, but it's day one, and it leaves his partner open to go "oh, hey, I can't save him without outting myself. Oh wells"
If he's town, both scum could go "you know, that's a really good point. I like that case"

No, i'm not doing that. I've stated that I found him scummy. My vote is on him. That's where it's going to stay until I see something scummy somewhere else.

Nope.
Not at all, actually.

[Zionite]

It's going to keep happening. I'm not going to address it anymore. lol

I'm not asking for support on it.

Say I made a good case about him. If he's scum, yeah, that's great and all, but it's day one, and it leaves his partner open to go "oh, hey, I can't save him without outting myself. Oh wells"
If he's town, both scum could go "you know, that's a really good point. I like that case"

No, i'm not doing that. I've stated that I found him scummy. My vote is on him. That's where it's going to stay until I see something scummy somewhere else.

So...you don't care about lynching scum.

You know scum can out themselves in the process of lynching their buddy quite easily. Read the scum game I linked you. I actually gave myself up pretty hard in that game when my buddy RobRoy was getting strung up. So your reasoning is wrong. Btw, how do you know how many scum there are?

Nope.
Not at all, actually.

So. Wrong. This actually makes me change my mind in assuming you weren't a terrible player.

[Zionite]

@Fuzzy

Not asking for support on a wagon that you're certain will hit scum leads me to believe that you don't care about lynching scum. The reasons you gave aren't adequate enough to justify giving up hitting scum for, because scum are easily caught due to the interactions they had when their buddy was getting strung up. It's harder to analyze town wagons than scum wagons on the next Day, because town can easily screw up while scum have to knowingly lynch their partners.

When you start lining up lynches based on false assumptions, the entire game is turned on its head and gets you stuck in a certain mindset. The only time I've ever been able to assume someone was scum before a flip was when he claimed my role (town game I linked). In that instance, I was confident enough to start picking out buddies early because I was certain he was scum, and it turned out I was right. But in general, you can't be that certain as town. Instead of constantly testing your own reads, you verify a false assumption and start building more reason against other players based on it. It's like building a house on a foundation of sand. It might look good for a few days, but eventually it'll fall apart because it was built on a faulty foundation.

So let me ask you this: if your goal is to catch my scum buddy, why wouldn't my wagon be the first place to look? It would seem to me that you could probably rule out anyone actually on the wagon as my buddy; it escalated pretty quickly and the late voters were the hardest pushers for information (like yourself and DBK). I don't think a buddy would vote me too early, and he or she wouldn't be pressing me so hard either. There was also the lack of a hammerer to consider. So the scum buddy is likely in the pool of non-voters, especially those with weak reasoning. You could look at Horus, RachMarie, Wisdom, and Grimgroove. Of those, Wisdom and Grimgroove were the most adamant about not hammering and gave adequate reasoning. Horus fence-sat on it pretty hard, and Rach is behaviorally acting scummy but didn't hammer either (and I can't recall if she gave any reasoning why). I recall you saying Horus was reading town to you, so barring any shenanigans with scum voting their buddy too early, Rach is probably the best candidate for my scum buddy in the case that i'm mafia.

My point is, this isn't that hard to do. You're claiming that the reason you're not pushing my wagon is because you want to catch the partner, but there's plenty to do that with already. You haven't actually attempted this though, which makes me think you're being insincere and biding your time. Even if you did follow through with some logical analysis of my wagon and it's (non)participants on the assumption I'm scum, you're still making an assumption that hasn't been verified and that your town reads have expressed doubt about. So you're being arrogant and playing badly.

[Zionite]

Or you're scum.

[Zionite]

If you're a PR, this is the wrong way to play it.

So you're planning on looking at my wagon but haven't yet? Why is planning to look at it so threatening to the scum team? And so what if your reads are public? It makes it easier for TOWN to figure you out too, and even better if you get NK'd and we have something to go on in your name.

[Zionite]

I'm showing that if he were town, this would be the mindset he would have. But he doesn't. There's been an inconsistency in his play that tells me he's scum. Why the hell would I analyze my own wagon assuming I'm scum and help him figure out who my buddy is? That post would be idiotic to make if I were scum.

This is the first I've seen of anything resembling a breadcrumb from him, so I don't think he's a PR. Maybe scum planning to claim PR. I don't know. But I didn't ask anything about a role, I'm just stating that he's doing it wrong if he has a good one.

[Zionite]

Again, there's this idea of uncertainty that town should have that he lacks, which makes him arrogant or scum.

[Zionite]

Scumtells keep dropping.
Now we have "why would I do this as scum" WIFOM too.
And no, this whole thing sounded like you know he's town and you're trying to tell him how to play. Not like you think he's scum.
All while you were refusing to consider the possibility of him being bad town and not scum earlier.
Just no.

VOTE: Zionite

If you're a PR, this is the wrong way to play it.

So you're planning on looking at my wagon but haven't yet? Why is planning to look at it so threatening to the scum team? And so what if your reads are public? It makes it easier for TOWN to figure you out too, and even better if you get NK'd and we have something to go on in your name.

Look, don't tell me how to play this game. I know what i'm doing and I don't take kindly to being told what to do or how to do it.

Considering I don't know who's town and who isn't, I don't want anyone figuring me out right now. That leads to sheeping, and I don't want that.

Again, there's this idea of uncertainty that town should have that he lacks, which makes him arrogant or scum.

LOL. Have you not realized how stubborn I am yet? I mean, honestly.


Looks like Wisdom is coming to his senses.

[Zionite]

Scumtells keep dropping.
Now we have "why would I do this as scum" WIFOM too.
And no, this whole thing sounded like you know he's town and you're trying to tell him how to play. Not like you think he's scum.
All while you were refusing to consider the possibility of him being bad town and not scum earlier.
Just no.

VOTE: Zionite

I don't see how playing out a hypothetical scenario to show a train of thought for townFuzzy is scummy. It makes sense to me to illustrate the disconnect between what should be happening and the reality.
I don't know if he's town, but I do know that he's been very anti-town throughout his entire play. But I'm always willing to consider the alternatives, something that fuzzy is incapable of. Yes, I can fathom being wrong and he's town, but I trust my reads and the tells he's given me enough to be comfortable voting him.
If I was refusing to believe he's bad town, I wouldn't be saying it so much. That's up for the players to decide and it's my responsibility to include it as a possibility, both for myself and everyone else. Barring meta, he's scum. No one has given me anything to read of Fuzzy to lead me to believe otherwise, except Fuzzy's most recent posts that pretty much prove he's just arrogant and doesn't care what the proper way to play is.

If you're a PR, this is the wrong way to play it.

So you're planning on looking at my wagon but haven't yet? Why is planning to look at it so threatening to the scum team? And so what if your reads are public? It makes it easier for TOWN to figure you out too, and even better if you get NK'd and we have something to go on in your name.

Look, don't tell me how to play this game. I know what i'm doing and I don't take kindly to being told what to do or how to do it.

Considering I don't know who's town and who isn't, I don't want anyone figuring me out right now. That leads to sheeping, and I don't want that.

Oh geez...like this, Wisdom. He just assumes people will sheep him because of how right he is, not because of how solid his cases are.

Again, there's this idea of uncertainty that town should have that he lacks, which makes him arrogant or scum.

LOL. Have you not realized how stubborn I am yet? I mean, honestly.


Looks like Wisdom is coming to his senses.

I have, but only through close scrutiny. The first couple of times I wrote off as "could be faking it", but now it's just ridiculous.


Anyway, point taken. I had two possibilities, and one is now looking stronger than the other.
UNVOTE:
VOTE: RachMarie

[Zionite]

@Fuzzy:It's kind of silly to assume scum will sheep you; they do what they need to do to win. That may involve barning your cases or completely ignoring them for a better target.
And I'm sorry if I offended you; I don't mean to tell you how to play, I'm just trying to resolve why your play isn't what I would expect from town.

@Wisdom: Yeah looks like I misread that. But the point stands; he's got enough evidence from this game to make me believe he's simply arrogant instead of scummy. I don't need to ISO that to show you I'm sure.
I did care about you not sharing town reads, but it seems that more than two players feel that way, so maybe I'm undervaluing the concept of keeping your reads close to the chest. Still, I think it's useful to lock everyone into some sort of read so you can mark the radical changes later. On MTGS we do town-scum lists to stimulate discussion sometimes; everyone posts their current town and scum reads. It's very useful for ferreting out the fence-sitters and jump starting lethargic town. But I disagree that I'm simply OMGUSing Fuzzy; my posts have ample content to show that's not the case.

I'm not trying to "lure" you to vote Rach. I've stated my case against Rach and she hasn't responded to it, so that's my next push. You can agree with it or not, but either way I want to know why beyond assuming I'm scum.

[Zionite]

@Rach:258 went completely ignored. I thought it was pretty obvious that I had two cases in the mix, so I don't think I was tunneling here. I don't like being ignored, so Fuzzy not answering me was just pissing me off.

@Fuzzy: Right, I understand that. But there's value in analyzing those "yeah he's right" posts, both before and after a lynch, and I'm not going to sacrifice my ability to give the town my reads just to avoid scum barning it if it's wrong.

[Zionite]

Yeah, I'd like to see some scum reads from Rach. I'm getting the feel that she's reading Wisdom as misguided town, and she started pushing Fuzzy a little bit. But there's nothing solid.

[Zionite]

I'm not referring to just that post. I'm talking about all of it so far.

[Zionite]

She didn't post anything else before I accused you. So wtf are you talking about?

This stuff:

umm Fuzzy mine is way out of date too, but got anything else to say? like something relevant to the game at hand?

What do you think of Zio's case on you?

What do you think of how Wis has been defending you?

Trying to get a read on fuzzy.

oh you are so tunneling

cmon everything you say practically has the Rach as must be scumz in it, not once have you tried looking at the players with me as Town. So yeah you are tunneling. Or defending Fuzzy against Zionite that is about the only non Rach thing I have seen, though I have not yet ISOed you. I need to do that.

meanwhile while we are doing this it gives the scumz a way to hide in the woodwork because there is not spotlight on them.

Talking about you tunneling.

bah I give up

Wis clearly is stuck in his conf bias which is unfortunate because he is prob town...

moving along to look at others now.

Putting you down as town.

[Zionite]

Rach, you're posting in other games. Give me some love.

[Zionite]

I HAD AN EPIPHANY WHILE I WAS READING THE EARLY GAME AGAIN

VOTE: Zionite

Hey guys, remember when Zionite had an L-1 wagon on him?
Remember when he reacted strongly to everyone's vote?
There's...someone he didn't react to.

I'll give you a hint: their name starts with Mala, and ends with Kittens.

I did respond to Mala's vote here (and Fuzzy's, but Mala was first):

The reason for my vote in the first place was to get content. I chose someone off the list who hadn't posted. I don't like the response so I'm leaving my vote until my read changes.

What point are you trying to make?

Good to see you back in the game

Ok more details please what do you mean about Zio and Mala? Are you hinting they might be scum budz?

I thought Mala was voting you?

I did notice though that Zio did not spend much energy on me until after he was at L-1 and I was voting for you Miss D...

Please respond to my case.

[Zionite]

Why are we lining up lynches without a single body flipped?

Why is Mala's scumminess in any way related to me?

[Zionite]

Mala's only had two points against me, and I responded to each. I can't really do much more than that to change her mind unless I get more from her. Other players have simply been more active and thus have more responses. Mala can superficially suspect me without me being her scum buddy. All that supports is that Mala votes based on shallow reads.

My scum read on Rach has been stronger than my read on Mala, and as you can tell I really only interact with players that I'm either 1) attacking, or 2) responding to. So yeah I'm unconcerned with her right now.

Also, what is with players here completely ignoring cases on them? This is frustrating. It's a straight up scum tell to ignore a case on you on MTGS; if it's a bad case then it should be easy to explain why. If I just started ignoring everything directed at me I'd be lynched instantly. Why does Rach get a pass now?

[Zionite]

It's not so much exaggerated as it is overreacting. Simply stating something about a power role is not the same thing as asking about a players role.

Back to the real issue; horus, you didn't respond to my rebuttal. Why?

[Zionite]

It's not so much exaggerated as it is overreacting. Simply stating something about a power role is not the same thing as asking about a players role.

Back to the real issue; horus, you didn't respond to my rebuttal. Why?

Oh no but pointing out 'hey guise he has a pr' helps fucken scum out more so people (town) should learn to shut up about it

It can, but if a PR was obvious enough to have town catch on, it's not like scum aren't reading the same game and will miss it if no one says anything. Actually most games I've played have the quiet ones who catch on being the scum rather than the players who point it out first (who are most likely town; why would scum let on they know and draw attention?).

Anyways, I don't feel like going through the whole ceremony. I'm just going to stick with what I know. I'm vanilla town. It doesn't change anything unfortunately, but it'll save us time since we have a deadline to consider. If we're going to lynch me, I want a stern look at Rach for scum and Miss or Mala for the partner. You have my case on Rach (still being ignored, bullshit). Miss Destroyer's recent push is very opportunistic and assumptive; I would think town would be more willing to hear a response to an argument rather than hiding behind a hydra and flying under the radar. Malakittens I'm less sure about; original reads for the most part but never a follow-through; not asking questions and taking an assumptive stance. DBK has been a good investigator and pusher, too ballsy and pushy for scum. I doubt that scum would push that hard on a town wagon knowing it would be a mislynch. Fuzzy is just arrogant, but town. Horus is too susceptible to opinion, but I feel that it's out of second guessing his own reads rather than being opportunistic scum. Grimgroove is using good analytic skills rather than barning other's opinions; town tell to me, but I wish I had more to go on. Wisdom I can't get a read on. He fits rather nicely as scum given this recent push, but everything he says is an original thought rather than a stolen read, so I really don't know.
So here's my reads:
TOWN

DBK
Horus
Fuzzy

Grimgroove

Wisdom

Malakittens

Miss Destroyer
RachMarie

SCUM

So yeah, I'd love to not be the lynch today and follow up on my Rach case, but this being ignored is pissing me off so much that I'm losing interest in trying. I suppose I could press Miss and Mala a bit more, but if they're just going to ignore me too then I've done all I can until I get a decent response. I just don't think it's fair that I offer every player the courtesy of a decent response and the chance to refine their reads while I get treated like a ghost. I at least expect people to be decent enough to acknowledge that I've said something even if it's critical of themselves.
I've easily got the most words said in the game so far and would continue to be a prominent voice for the town, but if no one is going to respond to me then it's kind of a moot point. Maybe it's just my playstyle is too different, I don't know. But it's impossible for anyone to say they can't read me at this point, and it will continue to be that way even if I'm alive for the next few game days. That's more than I can say for some of the other players.

I'm going to bed.

[Zionite]

Good luck, town.

[Zionite]

And there's this whole thing where people just assume they know their target's mindset instead of asking.

[Zionite]

"If the case against you is good, simply ignore it and call them scum"

[Zionite]

Good case does not always mean correct, it just means so on so genuinely finds me scummy...

Then why wouldn't you show me how it's incorrect unless you can't?

[Zionite]

umm its incorrect because I am Town not scumz, but it is a good case because it shows he is trying to scum hunt not just go for me cause I tend to be an easy lynch.

Maybe you're an easy lynch because you never address anything critical about your play. I don't know if you're town or scum, so simply stating you're town doesn't help anyone. It's more productive and persuasive to break down where my case fails (and it would fail if you were actually town).

at the same time, though, wouldn't that be near suicidal to do as scum?

What is suicidal?

[Zionite]

And just because I believe in miracles, are Governors popular in micros around here?

[Zionite]

This is an open setup, man.

I just found the setup in the wiki link. I thought it would be in the text of the host's intro post if it were open. Now I feel dumb.

As scum, to just come in and hammer someone without intent or anything. That's pretty much suicidal.

Normally I'd agree with you, but me listing him as my top town read is a good blessing if I'm wrong. That may give scum enough weight to survive the backlash.

[Zionite]

Just answering this for posterity, not that it matters now.

Zio, if you're VT, why did you ask when to claim and why didn't you claim when you got to L-1 twice?

No one asked for a claim at L-2; I'm used to players asking for a claim with their L-2 vote. When that didn't happen I asked for clarification.